Significance of Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans

STOP

Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.

Vol. xxxix] Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans 73

V — Significance of Worship and Prayer among the
Epicureans

By Dr. GEORGE DEPUE HADZSITS

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Religious beliefs are not readily changed, and fear of
contemporary criticism, and no less a lurking fear of offend-
ing the gods themselves, might conceivably have served as a
check upon any pagan. The Epicurean interpretation of the
pagan body of religion was only one of several that were
current in the ancient world, and the Epicureans' reconstruc-
tion involved intellectual and moral courage 1 on the one
hand, and, on the other, provoked misunderstanding, with a
consequent passive suspicion or active abuse. Although the
theological propositions of the Epicureans were, in many
respects, intrinsically crude, they possessed, nevertheless, for
the sincere Epicureans a religious value that has not always
been clearly recognized ; not allowing ourselves, therefore, to
be misguided by the artillery of the enemy, it will be our
purpose to determine from the Epicurean point of view the
Epicurean attitude toward the old body of religion, the Epi-
curean appreciation of his own new ideal theology, and the
factors in the Epicurean adjustment to existing institutional
conditions, — with a view, more particularly, to defining the
significance of worship and prayer according to the terms of
Epicurean philosophy of religion. The habit of worship and
prayer among the Epicureans, which has long seemed a veri-
table mystery " hid under Egypt's pyramid," possessed a clear
enough theoretical value according to Epicurean premises, —
whatever the actual experience of many Epicureans might
have been.

The Epicurean Velleius 2 was absolutely and uncompro-

1 Lucretius, i, 62-68, 80, 81, 945, iv, 19-20, v, 160; Cic. N.D. i, 85; Philode-
mus, Hepl Efoefielas (ed. Gomperz, 1866), p. 95, 1. 19-26, p. 109, 1. 10-16,
p. 144, 1. 7-9; Diog. Laert. x, 131.

2 Cic. N.D. i, 18 and 42-56.

74 George Depue Hadzsits [1908

misingly opposed to the old established religious beliefs, to the
poets' mythologies, and to other philosophies of religion. For
these he had no sympathy whatever, but only contemptuous
condemnation and eloquent indignation. Lucretius has given
us his view regarding the origin of religious feeling in general,
and regarding the causes that had led to the then prevalent
conceptions of existent gods and of commonly accepted forms
of worship. Lucretius 1 analyzes current pagan beliefs, in-
cluding cherished mythologies and venerable cults (as, e.g.,
of Magna Mater, Bacchus, Neptune, Ceres, Pan, myths of
Tartarus, myths of Creation), and his critical attitude enables
him to explain their several origins and to trace their histo-
ricity or historical development. Such a rationalization in-
evitably dispelled, in large measure, the mystery of myth and
cult, and left these without the peculiar fascination they had
exercised over the popular mind and imagination, since dogma
was robbed of its earlier virtue and reduced to the terms of
man's capricious fancy. Epicurus' dogmatic denial 2 of the
value of the old theology sprang from a conviction that the
truth was in possession of his school. Similarly Philodemus'
dogmatism 3 about the nature and existence of the gods —
marking the respect that existed within the Epicurean school
for the spiritual heritage left to his successors by the founder
of that school — included opposition to Stoicism and other
philosophies of religion, and a denial of the validity of the
old mythologies, as utterly unworthy of gods, as gods !

With no thought of dropping religion out of life, with no
suggestion of denying the objective existence of the gods,
the Epicurean huge dissatisfaction 4 with old myths and cults,

1 Lucretius, v, 1161-1193, 1204-1240, ii, 581-660, iii, 978-1023, iv, 580-594,
v, 146-234, vi, 379-422.

2 Diog. Laert. x, 123 : oi'ot/s 8' avrotis oi ttoXXoi vofd^ov<nv, ovk eialv. 124 : oi
yip irpoX^eis elfflv, d\V ^TroXij^eis ^/evSeis ai twv ttoXXuji' inrip deGw O7ro0d<reis.

3 Philodemus, p. 85, 1. 5-8, p. 72, 1. 3-8, [cf. Cic. N.D. i, 32,] pp. 19-43 passim ;
cf. " L'Inscription Philos. d'Oenoanda," Bull, de Corr. Hell, xxi (1897), p.

39i-

* Lucretius, i, 62-101, ii, 167-183, 581-660, 1090-1104, iii, 978-1023, iv, 580-
594, v, 146-234, 1 194-1203, vi, 59-80, 379-422. For a parallel to Lucretius'
" burning zeal and indignation," cf. Arnobius, adv. Nat. iv, 28.

Vol. xxxix] Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans 75

as misrepresenting the truth about the gods, led to a restate-
ment of their real character, altogether nobler, purer, and
serener — as Lucretius understood life and God — and to a
restatement of the gods' functioning, seemingly reduced to
a minimum of all activity. 1 Epicurus' theology " so little
meets the demands which the human heart and conscience
make of the ' Divine,' ... so little satisfies the requirements
of philosophy, that it has been matter for merriment or con-
tempt to his critics, from Cicero and Seneca to the Fathers,
and from the Fathers to the present day." 2 Despite the
metaphysical contradictions and absurdities that in time pro-
voked the dialectic and diatribe of ridicule, the gods of the
Epicurean theology inspired the sincere Epicurean with in-
tense enthusiasm, catching for Lucretius 3 a certain glow from
his cosmic fervor, that comprehended Heaven, Earth, and
Hell in its intellectual grasp. To Philodemus, 4 also, the gods
were truly inspiring, great and august, blessed, and in the
enjoyment of a supreme felicity that human life through imi-
tation sought to attain. The character of the gods and the
nature of their functioning were originally determined to
Epicurus' 5 mind by his conception of eiiBacfiovia, and that
evaluation of human life in terms of the divine included as
essential predicates, immortality and happiness, exaltation
above this world of change, and a sublime indifference to
mankind. The inspirational 6 power of the gods, as revealed
to the Epicureans, was for them unlimited ; the religious
problem was counted among the big problems of life, and
one of the great conditions of human happiness and supe-
riority was an Epicurean pious attitude toward and holy

1 cf. Arist. N. Eth. x, 8, 7.

2 Masson, John, Lucretius, Epicurean and Poet, 1907, p. 291. Cf., on the
other hand, Giussani, " Gli Dei di Epicuro," in his edition of Lucretius, 1896, I,
pp. 227-265.

3 Lucretius, iii, 28-30.

4 Philodemus, p. 106, 1. 9-10; p. 128, 1. 19-22; p. 123, 1. 12; p. 148, 1. 14-19.
6 Diog. Laert. x, 77, 97, 121, 123, 134, 139.

6 Diog. Laert. x, 135; Lucretius, iii, 322; Philodemus, p. 148, 1. 12-19;
" L'Inscription Philos. d'Oenoanda," Bull, de Corr. Hell. XXI (1897), p. 369,
1 2-10, col. 4 : Sre pin yip {wfiey iftolus to?s $eots, xo(p[o^]ei'. Diog. Laert. x, 1 33.

j6 George Depue Hadzsits [1908

regard for divinity ; the perfect Epicurean life 1 consciously
sought, through intellectual victories, to approximate that
supreme felicity. The new theology was a matter of the
deepest conviction with Velleius, 2 — based at once upon in-
tuition and, as he deemed it, irrefutable logic. About the
finality of the Epicurean solution of the great problem there
could be to the Epicurean mind no question ; the Epicurean's
intellectual emancipation was accompanied by the deepest
rapture — cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines men-
tem intentam infixamque nostram intelligentiam capere, quae
sit et beata natura et aeterna 3 — at the ultimate discovery
of the truth about the gods, who, as bodying forth the Epicu-
rean ideals of happiness and perfection, inspired him with
most enthusiastic 4 devotion and allegiance. The Epicureans,
as bearers of the truth about the gods, yielded to them a
worship that was not, as Philodemus 5 saw, a result of fear of
paining the gods through neglect, but which was an imme-
diate expression of admiration for their surpassing goodness
and power : —

6ai yap iv t<£ irtpX (0-
«ov) (?) oiKtlov dvai

(pr/criv, ov% <S)S

\v7rov) p.(vu>v (?) TU)V
6eS>v) €i p.r) trovf]-
<to/J£v) aWa, Kara,

TTjV iTTlVOWLV TW

VTrepf$)a\\ovcrG>v
8vvd)/u,« Kal (Jirov-

&O.IOt)t)TI <f>V(T(U)V.

1 This fact has often been overlooked; cf. e.g. Woltjer, Lucretii Philosophia
cum Fontibus Comparata, 1877, p. l ^7> Masson, The Atomic Theory of Lucretius,
1884, p. 168 seq.

2 Cic. N.D. i, 43-48, 115; cf. the comparatively uncertain tone of Cotta, 61.

8 Cic. N.D. i, 49; cf. the criticism of Stoic theology, 37 : Ita fit, ut deus ille,
quem mente noscimus atque in animi notione tamquam in vestigio volumus
reponere, nusquam prorsus appareat.

4 Cic. N.D. i,45, 56, 115-117, 121; cf. Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics,
tr. Reichel, 1892, p. 468.

6 Philodemus, p. 128, 1. 12-22.

Vol. xxxix] Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans yy

The adjustment of the Epicureans to existing institutional
conditions which they did not abandon, was, rather, a con-
servative actual participation 1 in and due observation of
established sacrifices, festivals, holidays, and mysteries, al-
though these, in part at least, proclaimed a different idea of
the character and functioning of the gods ; the Epicureans
conformed to this institutional life, not merely, says Philode-
mus, 2 in a conventional, formal manner because required by
law and custom but even with a natural enthusiasm, that
perhaps betrays the emotional force of ancestral sentiment : —

. . . Efl-iKovpos <j>avq-

<TtTal) (?), KOU TCT7)pr)K<j)S

airav)Ta (?) Kal Tots (f>i-
Aois T)r)piiv irapty-
yvr)K)u>s, ov jaovov
Sia t)ows vo/aovs <JA-
Aa 8ta <£vo"«/cas (a-
irtas).

Indeed, in the absence of an entirely new ritual and insti-
tutional concrete expression of this new theology, the only
means of approach to the gods that remained for the Epicu-
rean was a guarded employment of the old machinery of
worship, i.e. participation in established religious ceremonies
and festivals, attendance upon temple worship and use of the
ancient terminology; for all of these Lucretius 3 had an emo-
tional appreciation as allegory, poetry, and symbolism of

1 Philodemus, p. 118, 1. 3-20; p. 127, I. 8-28; naturally the Epicureans were
opposed to oracles [cf. Plut. adv. Col. 31, 1 125 D-F, de Def. Or. 45, 434 D-F],
nor could they properly hold priesthoods.

2 Philodemus, p. 128, 1. 5-12; idem, de Musica VH 1 I, c. 4, 6, in Usener,
Epicurea, 1887, p. 258.

3 Lucretius, ii, 644-645 :

quae bene et eximie quamvis disposta ferantur,
longe sunt tamen a vera ratione repulsa.

655-657 :

concedamus ut hie terrarum dictitet orbem

esse deum matrem, dum vera re tamen ipse

religione animum turpi contingere parcat.
Cf. Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, 1889,'p. 368; Lucretius, v, 1161-1167,
1203, iv, 1058, etc.

78 George Depite Hadzsits [1908

myths and cults that had the sanction of age and of law ;
such appreciation was, however, necessarily accompanied with
a conscious intellectual reservation or withholding of intel-
lectual assent, which sought to avoid the blinding cobwebs
of superstition and the confusions of thought that attended
the older pagan ritual and belief. This was much like pour-
ing new wine into old bottles, and to a contemporary pagan
an Epicurean hymning ancient formulae seemed an anomaly ; x
the Epicureans, engaging in cults and ceremonies that were
in large part based upon a different idea of God, were exposed
to misunderstandings, to charges of sham and hypocrisy. 2
However, while Philodemus (i.e. Epicurus) in general urges
obedience 3 to the laws and customs, yet it was with the impor-
tant reservation 4 that these did not impose aught of impiety
upon him ; this reservation strikes the keynote of the entire
spirit of the Epicurean worship, for the vital element in the
pious worship of the sincere Epicurean lay in maintaining
pure and sinless beliefs about the gods, and avoiding the
seduction of ancient premises that were false despite their
age: —

Koi to fx.eyi<r-

ToV) <j>tj(ri Kail olovu

TTjv) KaO-qyt/jLOViav [ti] ko.8' ifyeixoviav

<rwirepi)c)(Ov (?) ex £ ' v [vnep]ix ov ^""[o

. . K)al (?) iravra yap tr(o- e?c]<n

<j>ov) Ka.6a.pa.'; kcu d-

Ka«o)us (?) 8d£as ex £tv 4[/ye]ds

irepl) tov dtlov, koX

1 Such a situation is not without something of a parallel to-day; cf. Romanes,
Thoughts on Religion, 1895, p. 39.

2 Plut. adv. Col. c. 11, 1112 C; Non Posse Suav. Vivi sec. Ep. c. 21, 1102 B;
Diog. Laert. x, 131 ; Origenes, c. Cels. vii, 66. Such charges lose in force through
the fact that no secrecy attached to the advanced religious doctrines of the Epi-
cureans. Cf. Lange, Hist, of Materialism, 1877, I. p. 100.

3 Philodemus, p. 126, 1. 12-19.

4 Id. p. 120, 1. 16-20:

5e)T Tr&vra, ireldecr-

$ai rots x6ju(oi) s koX
toi)s i$i<TiM>is &>s
5.11 fj.)ri n rdv daefi&v
irpo)<TT<iT (r)w(Tti'.

Vol. xxxix] Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans 79
lxey)aXi]v re rati <re-

IXv)rjV VTT€lX.T]<t>e-

vai) ravTrjv rr/v

4>v<Tiv • Iv 8(e) Tais

eoprais ft(a)Xi<rT' «(i)s

iirivoiav avrijs

f3a.8i£ovTa Sia to

tovvo)w. iravTo.

dva (tto/x Zx £lv • •

. . . <7<^>o8(po)T£po)s ir[<W]« <r0o8[po]r^pwi

KaT "(vay<"?> (?)••• rfii- tfefii. 40]-

. . . Trjv aKrjdivrjV 1 — 6ap\_(rlav . .

No state could imprison an individual conscience, and a mental
reservation was the Epicurean's prerogative, while a re-inter-
pretation of that formal state religious material was a duty to
his own sincerity. For many, the use of religious institutions
older than the Epicurean school may have been merely a con-
venient means to an end, 2 resting upon a recognition of the
fact that such institutions, with all their fallibility, often for-
mally, though not vitally, survive the virtual death of the ideas
to which they originally owed their birth. Epicurus, whose
philosophy was not a militant gospel, did not wave the flag of
heresy aggressively ; whatever the reasons, 3 he seems never
to have proceeded to the institutionalizing of his religious
beliefs, — a step that would have been contrary to the spirit
of his whole philosophy. At any rate, in his devotions, the
pious Epicurean threw emphasis upon the right idea of God 4
rather than upon a perfunctory discharge of so-called religious
obligations.

Reconciliation was hardly to be expected between such
Epicurean freedom and a strict literal interpretation of recog-
nized religious duties with acceptance of all their implications.

For the Epicurean theology, piety and impiety gained a new

1 Philodemus, p. 106, 1. 1-29; for parallel col., see Usener, Epicurea, p. 258.

2 Cic. N.D. i, 44 : Cum enim . . . firma consensio.

3 Gassendi's remarkable defence (in de Vita et Moriius Epicuri, iv, 4) of the
sincerity of Epicurean worship emphasizes the political exigencies of the situation.

4 cf. Lucretius, v, 1 198-1203 with Epict. Enchir. 31.

80 George Depue Hadzsits [1908

definition. 1 For what the Epicurean must have regarded as
a religion of the letter, of the narrow and unenlightened
conscience, he substituted what was more nearly a true ser-
vice of the spirit, in which ritual, ceremonial barriers, craft of
priesthoods, cant, broke down before that freedom which was
the essence of the Epicurean's supremely individualistic pie-
tas? Unquestionably, in time, Epicurean rationalism 3 meant
a sweeping away of many of the mysteries and traditions
that passed as religio and an abandonment of many formal
symbols sanctioned by custom and law ; but the Epicurean
philosophy of religion, far from contemplating a subversion *
of religion, had as one of its great and conscious purposes 5
the establishment of a truer and purer form of worship, a re-
fined form of pietas toward the gods. The Epicurean phi-
losophy of religion made war 6 not upon the gods, but upon
erroneous conceptions of the gods, whose temples and altars
were to become scenes of a nobler form of worship. Only
that pietas that was free from what the Epicureans regarded

1 cf. Diog. Laert. x, 123: d<re|3i)s S' oix o rois t&v iroXk&v 0eois ivaipHv, dX\"
6 rds tot TroWCiy S6£as Beois vpoffdrraiv ; Lucretius, i, 81-83 ; Philodemus, p.
94, 1. 9-19, p. 144, 1. 7-9, p. 95, 1. 19-26: dXX' 0! iroXX(oi) vop-lfyvTis affepets rois
ovrai vtpl $ewv &iro(pa.ivop.4vovs xoXdfowiJ' (Sis 'ASrjvawi (^Z s )o>Kpi.ri)V Kal tivos
irtpovs. Diog. Laert. x, 10.

2 Lucretius, v, 1 198-1203:

Nee pietas ullast velatum saepe videri
Vertier ad lapidem atque omnis accedere ad aras
Nee procumbere humi prostratum et pandere paltnas
Ante deum delubra nee aras sanguine multo
Spargere quadrupedum nee votis nectere vota,
Sed mage pacata posse omnia mente tueri.
8 Plut. adv. Col. c. 22, 1 1 19 D-E: dXXd rbv 0ebv p.*i XeViK 0eox mdi vo/il^eiv,
$ irp&TTere fywis, jui>Te Ala yev49\u>v p.ifre Aijjuijrpa Beffiuxpipov elcoi juijre IWaSura
(pvrdXiuov oiwXoyctv eWXovres . . , brav rets avve&vypAvas rots Scots ir poa-qyoplas
6.Troo~irG)VTes ffvvavaiprjre Bvfflas fivar^pta iro/Airds ioprds.

4 Cic. N.D. i, 115, 117-119, 121, 123, 124; cf. these attacks with 32: Atque
etiam Antisthenes in eo libro, qui physicus inscribitur, populares deos multos,
naturalem unum esse dicens tollit vim et naturam deorum, and with " L'lnscrip-
tion Philos. d'Oenoanda," Bull, de Corr. Hell. XXI (1897), P- 393. col. 49 2 , 1- 5
. . . ws otfx' v(.V*i* &vaipo)Ofiev toi>s (flcoiis, dXX eV)epoi, etc.

* Cic. N.D. i, 45 : Si nihil aliud quaereremus, nisi ut deos pie coleremus et ut
superstitione liberaremur, satis erat dictum.

6 Plut. adv. Col. c. 21, 1119 B ; Diog. Laert. ii, 97 ; Cic. N.D. i, 36.

Vol. xxxix] Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans 8 1

as superstition, that was released from fear, that was not
hampered by the necessity of seeking the favor and avoiding
the anger of the gods, that scientifically repudiated belief in
Providence and in a divine creation and regulation of the
world, that dispensed with divinatio, seemed to Velleius 1 a
genuine pietas, truly pia and sancla ; these attendant condi-
tions were a sine qua non of the Epicurean idea of a proper
worship of the gods. From this Epicurean revision of the
pagan articles of faith there sprang a new conception of the
proper relation of man to God, in which — as Lucretius 2 saw
the matter — an older feeling of fear, of superstition, and of
unrest associated with a need of propitiation, was superseded
by a splendid, confident calm, by courage and admiration.

The Academic pontiff Cotta was utterly incapable of either
sympathizing with the Epicurean conception of divinity or of
comprehending this step in the evolution of pagan religious
experience. The chasm of infinite distance and of divine
indifference, that stretched between God and man, seemed all
too wide for any bridge to span, and the Epicurean worship 3
of gods who did not care for man, a worship without the
pagan idea of cotnmunitas * and of amicitia, seemed at once
barren and hopeless, futile and without justification. The
older orthodox pagan, conventional pietas and sanctitas, evcre-
/3eta and ocrtoV?;? involved a knowledge of the prescribed usages
of the established apparatus of worship and were based on a

1 Cic. N.D. i, 45-56; Plut. Non Posse Suav. Viv. sec. Ep. c. 8, 1092 B (cf.
420 B, 1101C, 1123A, H24E-F,iioi B); Lucretius, ii, 65 1 ; Philodemus, p. 122,
I.20-29, P- I2 3. !• 15-26, p. 145, 1. 18-21; Diog. Laert. x, 97, 135; Oxyrh.
Papyr., II, n. 215, sec. col., 1. 9-19 (see Riv. di Fit. 1906, p. 246), etc.

2 Lucretius, cf. e.g. i, 83, impia facta; ii, 657, religione (i, 63, 101); iii, 16,
terrores; v, 1165, horror, 1207, cura; vi, 52, formidine; vs. i, 79, nos exaequat
victoria caelo; iii, 28, divina voluptas; v, 1203, pacata mente, etc.; cf. Verg.
Geor. ii, 490.

8 Cic. N.D. i, 1 1 5 : Quid est enim, cur deos ab hominibus colendos dicas, cum
di . . . homines non colant ? . . . 116: qui quam ob rem colendi sint, non in-
tellego. ... 122: quid veneramur, quid precamur deos? cur sacris pontifices,
cur auspiciis augures praesunt? ... 123: quae enim potest esse sanctitas, si di
humana non curant? Plut. adv. Col. c. 8. nil B: Kal yap t^v irp&miav avaip&v,
eiaifie<.av airo\elireiv \tyei, rings with scorn.

4 Cic. de Leg. i, 21 seq.; but cf., for a contrary view, Arist. Eth. N. viii, 7, 4, 5;
M. M. ii, 11.

82 George Depue Hadzsits [1908

belief in a reciprocal relation between God and man. 1 This
reciprocal relation was the keystone of the ancient belief
and worship, the foundation of all organized pagan religion
and ritual, and the whole pagan orthodox world shrank from
the Epicureans, who seemed to break this mould 2 in which
ancient religious prejudice was cast. Sunt enim philoso-
phi et fuerunt, qui omnino nullam habere censerent rerum
humanarum procurationem deos. Quorum si vera sententia
est, quae potest esse pietas, quae sanctitas, quae religio?
Haec enim omnia pure atque caste tribuenda deorum numini
ita sunt, si animadvertuntur ab iis et si est aliquid a dis
immortalibus hominum generi tributum. Sin autem di neque
possunt nos iuvare, nee volunt, nee omnino curant nee quid
agamus animadvertunt nee est quod ab iis ad hominum vitam
permanare possit, quid est quod ullos dis immortalibus cul-
tus, honores, preces adhibeamus ? 3 But even among the
Epicureans a belief in a reciprocal relation between God and
man did exist, withal that the gods did not care for man ; but
the comparative subtlety of the Epicurean theory seems not
to have been fully comprehended in antiquity, 4 nor, perhaps,
fully realized, in practice, even within the Epicurean school,
— and the Epicureans remained in religious isolation. 5 The
deeper significance of worship and prayer depended upon the
Epicurean definition of evo-e/3eia and pietas, and included a

1 Cic. N.D. i, 116: est enim pietas iustitia adversum deos; . . . sanctitas
autem est scientia colendorum deorum (cf. de Dom. 107, Part. Or. 78, Plane.
80) ; Xen. Mem. iv, 6, 2-5 : "EJecrTix Si 6v iv tis |8ch5X»)tc« rpinrov rods Beotis
Tifiap ; Owe, aWa vhpoi elalv, na.6' ovs det touto irotetv. Cf. Sext. Emp. adv. M. ix,
123; Plat. Euthy. 12 D-14 D; Ov. Met. viii, 724, etc.

2 Sen. de Ben. iv, 4, 1-3; Plut. Non Posse Suav. Viv. see. Ep. c. 20, 1 100 E-
1101 A; c. 23, 1103 D; Atticus Eus. Praep. Ev. xv, 5, 13, p. 800 c: avT&v (tQv
Seuiv'EiriKoi/pos) d<£e?Xe •rifi* irpbs rip.as Mpyeiav, 41- ijs jrfxTjs t6 efoat toi)s Beobs
%fie\\e tt)v SiKaiav irlariv %&iv. Arrianus Epict. Diss, ii, 20, 23 : \d(Se t& ivavrla,
Sti Beol oSt' e'urlv et re xai ti<rtv, oix iwiiiehovvrai. ivBpiiiriav oidi koiv&v ti r)iuv
4<TTt Trpbs atiroits t6 t eucre^s tovto Kal 8<riov irapb rots toWois dvBpwirois XaXoii-
/xevov Ka.T&\pev<rp.& i<rriv ' dXaftfptor oLvBpdjtrdjv Kal <ro<t>«TT &v ' . Lact. de Opif. Dei
ii, 10 : unde ego philosophorum qui Epicurum secuntur amentiam soleo mirari, etc.

3 Cic. N.D. i, 3.

4 Modern criticism seems not to have taken the fact into proper account.

5 Plut. Non Posse Suav. Viv. sec. Ep. c. 19, 1 loo C.

Vol. xxxix] Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans 83

re-interpretation of this reciprocal relation between man and
God.

The Epicureans x counted themselves among those philoso-
phers who believed that the gods bestow rS>v ayadwv ra fieyia-ra,
but might also be /3\dfir)<; /ecu ica/cav . . . alriovs, — a theory ten-
able even within the circle of Epicurean theology, a theory
subject, however, to re-interpretation by the Epicureans who
rejected the vulgar 2 idea of divine m<f>e\iai and fSkafHai. Now,
the Epicureans resented the charge 3 that their philosophy of
religion robbed just and good men of their hopes and, on the
contrary, claimed that divine d><j>e\iai were the rewards * of
goodness, wisdom and justice, while fiXafiai were the penalty 4
of evil ; indeed, the very greatest blessings being in store for
' piety,' 5 the salvation of Heaven was within the grasp only
of such as through qualities of virtue, and wisdom, approached
to kinship 6 with the gods. The Epicurean denial of the
truth of the older conception of objective, concrete rewards
and punishments rendered these, rather, a matter of psycho-
logical reaction. " Images of a Zeus, a Heracles, an Athena
might pass in and impress the aspect and character of each
Deity upon the mind, and carry with them suggestions of
virtue, of courage, of wise counsel in difficulty, of many of
the things which human nature is wont to seek from a higher

1 Philodemus, p. 86, 1. 21-25 > c '- Sen. Ep. 95, 50 for the Stoic doctrine;
perhaps Diog. Laert. x, 134, has a hint upon this question.

2 Philodemus, p. 97, 1. 17-25.

3 Philodemus, p. 94, 1. 19-25; p. 145, 1. 11-21.

4 Philodemus, p. 100, 1. 9-15.

6 Philodemus, p. 145, 1. 11-21 : 6 Philodemus, p. 124, 1. 2-10:

. . . rrjs dyadijs Kal <rwTijp/o(s avdpib-

toIvvv 4\irtS(os won Sid tov $e(ov Ka-

rois ei<ref)eis rbv Takenrriov, iir(oyp&-

Tp&irov dwoa-repoO- <pei 8i& ir\eil>(vwv •

p*v ol Kal neyl<TTi)(v ev re tw(i) Tpc(i<r/coi-

airrois (b<pi\ti.av (4k SeKirip TrepQ. rijs

t&v 0euiv v(Toypd- olicei/rrriTos %(y wp6s

(povres, Kal t^v tto- Ttyos o fobs «x( e ' *a2

vT)poTi.Tf)v ava- rijs dX\oTpi(6TijTos-
k6tttovt€S a(i)ro?s
irpoffSoKiav ; . . .

84 George Depue Hadzsits [1908

Power." l Divine rewards and punishments were visited
upon possessors respectively of a true or a false knowledge
of God, —

oi yap irpoXr/i/'cts eicriv, aXX V7roX.rnJ/ws i/'cvSas ai tS>v ttoWSiv virip 6eu>v
anoffxicTeiis. tvdtv al /jLeyurrai /3Xa/8ai re rois KaKoti «k Oeiov iirayovTai
koI ux^c'Aaat [rois dyatfois]. tcus yap ioYais oiKcioiyxcvoi 8ta ttovtos
dperais rovs 6/aoiovs diroSe^ovTat, irav to /xt) toiovtov <!>s dAXoTyHOv
vop-t^ovrts, 2

not, then, subject to the caprice of pagan gods, but clearly
dependent upon individual wisdom and virtue, and limited, of
course, to this world, with no hope nor fear on the part of the
worshipper of any Hereafter. It would seem that so-called
divine punishment was a purely subjective matter, the unrest
of error and sin, in no way, of course, attributable to the
intent of .angered deities. 3 Through the mediation of wor-
ship and prayer, the intellectually gifted 4 and the spiritually
equipped drew nearest to the gods, in whose care rested that
form of redemption which was possible under the terms of
Epicurean psychology and epistemology ; worship and prayer

1 Masson, Lucretius, Epicurean and Poet, p. 285 ; pp. 284-286, represent a
great advance upon his earlier article " Lucretius' Prooemium and Epicurean
Theology," in The Jour, of Phil., VIII (1879), but neglect many important
considerations. Pascal's interesting " La Venerazione degli Dei in Epicuro," in
Riv. di Fil. XXXiv (1906), 241-256, differs from the present study in many
vital respects.

2 Diog. Laert. x, 124.

3 Lucretius, vi, 68-75 : 1 uae ms ' res P u i s ex animo longeque remittis | dis
indigna putare alienaque pacis eorum, | delibata deum per te tibi numina sancta |
saepe oberunt; non quo violari summa deum vis [ possit, ut ex ira poenas petere
inbibat acris, | sed quia tute tibi placida cum pace quietos [ constitues magnos
irarum volvere ductus, | nee delubra deum placido cum pectore adibis. Cf. Sext.
Emp. adv. Phys. i, 19 : ivBev ko.1 cvxerai ei\6fwv rvx^v eiStbXwv. Atticus
Eus. Pr. Ev. xv, 5, p. 8oo": ri8-q Se rair-Q ye Kal k<xt 'EwiKovpov bvi)<xi% tois
ivBpihiroLS airb $ewi> ytverai ■ rets 700** ^eXriovas airoppoias aiirwv fpaai rots
li*Ta.axovai. p.eyd\oiv dyadwv Tapairias ylveadai. Philodemus, p. 86, 1. I3 _2 3-

4 Epicurean religiosity was a matter of enlightenment and its intensity was in
proportion to the clarity of the vision. Cic. N.D. i, 49 : Epicurus . . . docet
earn esse vim et naturam deorum, ut primum non sensu, sed mente cernatur ;
Lucretius, v, 148-149; vi, 76-78; Diog. Laert. x, 139; Stob. Eel. i, 66; Plut.
de Plac. Phil, i, 7, 15; Cic. N.D. i, 116: sapientem; Philodemus, p. 106, 1. 6,

<TO<p6v.

Vol. xxxix] Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans 85

were but the media, the final means, in fact, of communica-
tion with the gods, whereby the Epicurean — through the
saving grace of wisdom having become susceptible to the
divine influence — was capable of receiving that blessing
from the gods which alone, according to Epicurean thought,
was a possibility. Worship and prayer completed the relig-
ious mood of the suppliant wise man, who alone could obtain
from the gods what Epicureanism characterized as neyicnrjv
w<f>e\eiav ! Under all these conditions, the reciprocal relation
between the Epicurean and his gods, resting on the wor-
shipper's intellectual-spiritual aspiration, was completed by
the reward of inspiration of a divine tranquillity, — while the
consequent subjective exaltation to realize in conscience or
in deed that which might have been the formal burden of
Epicurean prayer constituted the test of its efficacy. . . .
T049 6eol<i Kal Qav\i,6X,eL tt)\v\ <f>vaiv \_ai>TO)v «(ai)] rrjv BtdOecriv
Kal Treiparat. <rvv€y<y£[£eiv] avrrji Kal icaOairepei yXfyeTai Oiye[lv
Kal crv^velvai, ica\el t[«] koItovs aofovs rwv \6eS)\v <f>i\ow Kal
rois deow r<av crocfrav. 1

This was a paradox that baffled the hostile jury of the
school's critics, to whom worship and prayer among the Epi-
cureans seemed incongruous, a fallacy, an offence to the
Epicurean's conscience and a violation of his convictions.
Inconsistency, 2 however, lay not in the fact of worship and
prayer, — which, indeed, received intellectual justification in
the Epicurean school, — but might consist in the nature of
that worship and prayer. Unfortunately, no official prayer-
book of the Epicureans exists (never did exist, perhaps), but
speculation upon some aspects of that type of worship and
prayer that possessed validity according to Epicurean doctrine,
is not altogether idle. The ideality of the gods to the Epicu-

1 Philodemus, de Deor. Victu, VH. 1 vi, col. I. Seneca's phrases are mis-
leading ; de Ben. iv, 19. 3: quia nullum habes illius beneficium, ... 4:
nempe hoc facis nullo pretio inductus, nulla spe; as also, Cic. N.D. i, 116:
nullo nee accepto ab iis nee sperato bono; Plut. Non Posse Suav. Viv. sec. Ep.
c. 23, 1 103 D: Air/f«s ti xPWrbv irapa $e&i> Si" eicrtfieuLv; TeTi<pu<raf rb yap
fxaKdpiov Kal ti,<p6apTov air' dpyais oiire x^P t<r ' <rvvtx e ™ ' s "-"t true Epicurean
doctrine.

2 Decharme, La Critique des Traditions religieuses, 1904, p. 255.

86 George Depue Hadzsits [1908

rean imagination and the character of the divine inspiration
must have determined the limits and restricted the scope of
Epicurean prayer. The best Epicureanism x might conceiv-
ably have felt a sympathy for that wide-spread, deep-seated
dissatisfaction (expressed outside the Epicurean school), that
ancient protest 2 against pagan prayers which required puri-
fication and reformation. Epicurean prayer that sought to
lift the worshipper to the majestic level of the gods must needs
have been an expression of the Epicurean's most exalted
aspiration, and Epicurean theology — with all its refinements
that recognized incongruity in the presumption and vulgarity 3
of customary worship, sacrifice, and prayer — could have sanc-
tioned only petitions for those divine qualities of wisdom,
justice, beauty, happiness, and repose of which the gods were
the true keepers. 4 If the theory of Epicurean worship and
prayer failed 5 through the frailty of human nature, it none
the less remains a verity that within the scope of Epicurean
philosophy there existed this possibility, at least, of securing
to worship and prayer a new purity, dignity, and nobility.
Though the efficacy of that worship and prayer rested upon
the wisdom and purity of the individual life, it did not possess
a disinterested character, 6 nor find its satisfaction or lose

1 Ei rats t&v ivOpiiwuir eixats o $eds KaT7)Ko\oi6ei, 05.TTOV av airiiXXvyro
wavres &v8pu)T0i, ffvvex&s iroXXd Kal xfXeira kut dXXijXwi' eixbp£voi. See Usener,
Epicurea, p. 259, fr. 388.

2 Juv. 10, 346-366; Plato, Ale. ii, 142 E, 143, 148 C; Xen. Mem. i, 3, 2; Val.
Max. vii, 2, ext. I; Cic. de Domo, 107; Lucian, Icarotn. 25; Philodemus, p. 145,
1. 18-21.

3 cf. Pers. Sat. 2, 68 seq.; Plat. Ale. ii, 150; Epict. Enchir. 31; Sen. Ep. 95,
50, etc.

4 cf. Plato, Phaedrtis, 279 B : *fi <pi\e Tldv re Kal AXX01 8<roi . . . 8tot, Solriri
Hoi KaXiJ) yevt<r$ai. T&i>8ot)ev, £{a>0ee 5" &ra ex"> T °'S tvrbs eival fwi <pl\ia.

5 Lucian, Icarotn. c. 32; Lucian, Zetis Tr. c. 22; Cic. in L. Pis. 59; Athen.
Deipn. v, 7, 1 79 D (while not true of Epicurus himself, doubtless true of Epicu-
reans of a later date when a genius for debauchery had developed).

6 cf. Guyau, La Morale d'Apieure, 1886, 177; Picavet, De Epicuro Novae
Eeligionis Auctore, 1888, Iio-m; and "Epicure Fondateur d'une Religion
nouvelle," in Revue de VHistoire des Religions, xxvii (1893), 338; Decharme,
La Critique des Traditions religieuses, 1904, 256-257; Pascal, "La Venera-
zione degli Dei in Epicuro," in Riv. di Fit. XXXIV (1906), 242, 247; CI. Phil. II
(1907), 188.

Vol. xxxix] Worship and Prayer among the Epicureans 87

itself in mysticism or mere contemplation, but rather, true to
the self-centred nature of Epicurean ethics, sought, ulti-
mately, the greatest attainable happiness of the individual
suppliant. Sacrifices might properly continue, — not, how-
ever, as a means of influencing 1 or of assisting deity, but
more nearly as an expression of admiration for divinity ; but
Epicurean sacrifices, offered even in such a spirit, aimed at no
revolution of the older pagan quid pro quo relation with the
gods, inasmuch as by contributing to the religious mood of
the wise man, they facilitated the reciprocal relation between
the Epicurean and his gods. But with a finer sense and a
deeper conviction of the proper relation of man to God,
Epicurean worship, sacrifice, and prayer were the profound
adoration, the inevitable tribute of veneration of the disillu-
sioned for the permanent and the perfect in the universe. 2
Such was the spiritual uplift of the gods! Epicureanism,
though realizing that God might not need man, never lost
sight of the everlasting instinct of a human need of God : ra
Be roaavra XeyeaOco icai vvv, on to Baijioviov /xev ov Trpoo-Bei\r~\al
tivos nfirjs, rjfuv Be (frvcweov ecrnv avrb rifiav? Prayer was not*
incompatible with Epicurean doctrine, but the premium that
was placed upon individual intelligence raised the utility or
the validity of prayer beyond the grasp of all save a few,
— and the Epicurean school, by a strange irony of fate, suf-

1 Lucretius, v, 165-166; Lact. Div. Inst, vii, 5, 7; de Ira Dei, ii, 7; Diog.
Laert. x, 139; Lucian, Icarom. 32; Lucretius, ii, 651; Sen. de Ben. iv, 19, 2; Cic.
N.D. i, 121.

2 Sen. de Ben. iv, 19, 4 : Propter maiestatem, inquis, eius eximiam singula-
remque naturam ; Cic. N.D. i, 45 : nam et praestans deorum natura hominum
pietate coleretur, cum et aeterna esset et beatissima; 116: At est eorum eximia
quaedam praestansque natura, ut ea debeat ipsa per se ad se colendam allicere
sapientem.

3 Philodemus, de Mus. VH 1 . i, c. 4, 6.

4 Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics (tr. Reichel, 1892), p. 464, is not
correct in saying " together with Providence, the need of prayer ... is at the
same time negatived," nor does the " captious argument " of Hermarchus [Procl.
66 E (Diehl) in Plat. Tim. 27 C] prove this at all; cf. also Schmidt, Veteres
philosophi quomodo iudicaverint de precibus, 1907, p. 24 (Philodemus, p. 77, is
most uncertain evidence). Cf. Schoemann, De Epicuri Theologia, 1871, pp. 337-
338; Wallace, Epicureanism, 1880, p. 207; James, The Varieties of Religious
Experience, 1908, pp. 463 seq.

88 George Depue Hadssits [1908

fered all the ignominy and the rancor more properly due to
the impious and to atheists.

In the specific instance of the Lucretian invocation of
Venus, all of the ancestral associations, — mythological, ar-
tistic, religious, poetic, political, historical, — while possessing
for the orthodox pagan mind a magisterial influence, consti-
tuted for Lucretius, as an Epicurean, merely a time-honored,
though in part false, drapery that hardly obscured the truth
from any sincerely religious Epicurean. However strong the
emotional appeal of older fancies might have been, the
Epicurean's intellectual enthusiasm must have been reserved
for the religious truth that lay behind the veiling. Only a
surmise that Lucretius wrote this invocation prior to the time
that he embraced Epicureanism might relieve us, to-day, of
the necessity of putting an Epicurean interpretation upon it ;
as an Epicurean invocation, it is, of necessity, addressed not
to Nature 1 nor to an abstract law of Nature, not to the Venus
of antecedent antiquity nor to such a goddess robbed of her
power and possessing merely an allegorical or symbolic sig-
nificance, — but to the goddess of Epicurean theology, to
whom Epicurean pietas could in all consistency pray,

quo magis aeternum da dictis, diva, leporem.

1 Cic. N.D. i, 36 : Zeno, autem, ut iam ad vestros, Balbe, veniam, naturalem
legem divinam esse censet, eamque vim obtinere recta imperantem prohibentemque
contraria. Quam legem quo modo efficiat animantem, intellegere nonpossumus;
deum autem animantem certe volumus esse. Atque hie idem alio loco aethera
deum dicit, si intellegi potest nihil sentiens deus, qui numquam nobis occurrit,
neque in precibus, neque in optatis, neque in votis; aliis autem libris rationem
quandam per omnem naturam rerum pertinentem vi divina esse affectam putat. . . .